By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Digital Foundry: Red Dead Redemption 2 Analysis

Chazore said:
Sunstrider said:

This is a rumor but maybe, just maybe.

From a Rockstar Linkdln profile listing which has been changed since.

Old Photo

New Photo

R* know there is money to be made, and going by how they went about releasing GTA V near the end of the gen, then milking the start of next gen, followed by PC, I think it's safe to say that R* will continue to repeat this strategy ad infinitum. 

 

Very smart business. It's the ultimate money making strategy. 



Around the Network
MichaelDeSanta said:
SvennoJ said:

It might simply be a choice the developers made. Upscaling 1920x2160 has its benefits and perhaps with their rendering solutions looks better than upscaling 1800p. 1800p checkerboard might have also caused some frame rate dips, limited by gpu, while right now the pro is stable and seems to be limited rather by the cpu in some occasions.

What R* could have done (and what I kinda referred to in my original post as lack of enhancements) is offer a performance mode and one prioritizing picture quality. Having the vertical resolution native is great for wide screen open world games where you are always not far above the ground. Definitely a good choice to prioritize that.

What is surprising is that base XBox One is only 65% of the res of base ps4, or base ps4 having 1.56x the pixels of the base Xbox. If anything went 'wrong' during development it's there. Yet perhaps not that surprising as double the GPU rarely means double the pixel resolution. So the reverse is also true, you need to drop res a lot more to keep it running. If anything it suggests RDR2 development was done for the XBox One X and resolution turned down for the other consoles.

So the base Xbox running at 900p while PS4 runs at 1080p (like almost every single multiplat out there) is surprising to you, but the Xbox One X running at 100% higher resolution (with better frame rates) than the PS4 Pro is normal?  

As I said, it might simply be by choice to keep the frame rate stable. 1800p might have made the frame rate more unstable, plus the temporal aliasing might have looked worse applying it for both axis.

XBox One X also has a faster CPU and much faster memory than ps4 pro.
PS4 has a slower cpu than base XBox One and eDRam can make a difference as well if used correctly.

Open world games are bound by CPU and memory speed a lot sooner than linear games. So if Pro uses the same hi-res textures as the X, the X has the advantage of the faster memory as well. Plus having more memory available also helps in keeping the frame rate stable.

So, nope, doesn't surprise me. 1920x2160 is equivalent to 1525p. It's better than 1440p, scales better than 1800p, and the 1.38x increase to 1800p could make the frame rate dips worse. What they could have offered is cinematic mode, 2.35:1 with black bars at a native 3840x1634 (that's still more than 1800p) and lock it at 24fps :) Most tvs support 24p judder free. Truly cinematic!




Kerotan said:
Chazore said:

R* know there is money to be made, and going by how they went about releasing GTA V near the end of the gen, then milking the start of next gen, followed by PC, I think it's safe to say that R* will continue to repeat this strategy ad infinitum. 

 

Very smart business. It's the ultimate money making strategy. 

And sadly anti consumer.



"Six days have passed, on the seventh, I will render myself to a day of rest and to contemplate...what is to be"

KingofTrolls said:
SvennoJ said:

1.HDR has a much bigger impact than a higher pixel count.
2.Anyway bring on the game, will pick it up tomorrow. Without HDR providing any benefits I won't have to bother removing the breakout box every time. hdmi 1.4 is plenty for 4k checkerboard.

 

1. To a degree I guess. Hey, the resolution is the bone of the IQ. I guess nobody here is rockin on the 100' 4K TV, but it does matter. 

Also, HDR is not perfect in many TVs, I would say only few a premium TVs do it right.Moreover, HDR is not properly implemented in many games - yes, I look at u TloU Remastered. From what I read, the HDR in RDR2 is OKish, just like it should be.U even have the calibration of the effect, I would kill for it in many PS4 games.

2. Any benefits... Look, HDR is an addition. The image is not better or worse - it's different.

I got the impression from DF that it doesn't provide much of a difference and the calibration options are lacking. However I'll check for myself tomorrow. Plus they said they would be looking into it more later. They did all the comparisons in SDR.

The image is definitely better with HDR. I've made screenshots of SotC where a lot of detail is lost due to the conversion to SDR. Night time and dark areas look much better with HDR and are easier to navigate. Day time doesn't benefit as much since you're not looking at the sky anyway. Of course if you play while the sun is out (the real sun) it won't make any difference :)

Resolution does matter, HDR does a lot more for the image though.



SvennoJ said:
MichaelDeSanta said:

So the base Xbox running at 900p while PS4 runs at 1080p (like almost every single multiplat out there) is surprising to you, but the Xbox One X running at 100% higher resolution (with better frame rates) than the PS4 Pro is normal?  

As I said, it might simply be by choice to keep the frame rate stable. 1800p might have made the frame rate more unstable, plus the temporal aliasing might have looked worse applying it for both axis.

XBox One X also has a faster CPU and much faster memory than ps4 pro.
PS4 has a slower cpu than base XBox One and eDRam can make a difference as well if used correctly.

Open world games are bound by CPU and memory speed a lot sooner than linear games. So if Pro uses the same hi-res textures as the X, the X has the advantage of the faster memory as well. Plus having more memory available also helps in keeping the frame rate stable.

So, nope, doesn't surprise me. 1920x2160 is equivalent to 1525p. It's better than 1440p, scales better than 1800p, and the 1.38x increase to 1800p could make the frame rate dips worse. What they could have offered is cinematic mode, 2.35:1 with black bars at a native 3840x1634 (that's still more than 1800p) and lock it at 24fps :) Most tvs support 24p judder free. Truly cinematic!


I understand that the developer can choose resolution they want, I'm just surprised the X1X is pushing DOUBLE the pixels vs. the Pro at a higher, more stable frame rate. 

I'm also confused as to why you're surprised that the base Xbox One runs the game at what is essentially 900p vs 1080p on the PS4 when almost every multi-platform game released in the last 4 years has been the exact same way.  



Around the Network

Xbox version it is.




Undisputed Gamer BAY BAY 

MichaelDeSanta said:
SvennoJ said:

As I said, it might simply be by choice to keep the frame rate stable. 1800p might have made the frame rate more unstable, plus the temporal aliasing might have looked worse applying it for both axis.

XBox One X also has a faster CPU and much faster memory than ps4 pro.
PS4 has a slower cpu than base XBox One and eDRam can make a difference as well if used correctly.

Open world games are bound by CPU and memory speed a lot sooner than linear games. So if Pro uses the same hi-res textures as the X, the X has the advantage of the faster memory as well. Plus having more memory available also helps in keeping the frame rate stable.

So, nope, doesn't surprise me. 1920x2160 is equivalent to 1525p. It's better than 1440p, scales better than 1800p, and the 1.38x increase to 1800p could make the frame rate dips worse. What they could have offered is cinematic mode, 2.35:1 with black bars at a native 3840x1634 (that's still more than 1800p) and lock it at 24fps :) Most tvs support 24p judder free. Truly cinematic!


I understand that the developer can choose resolution they want, I'm just surprised the X1X is pushing DOUBLE the pixels vs. the Pro at a higher, more stable frame rate. 

I'm also confused as to why you're surprised that the base Xbox One runs the game at what is essentially 900p vs 1080p on the PS4 when almost every multi-platform game released in the last 4 years has been the exact same way.  

It's not 900p, it's 92% of 900p. Base ps4 is pushing 1.56x the amount of pixels instead of 1.44x for the regular 900 vs 1080.

Yet if the base xbox can't maintain 900p vs 1080p, I'm pretty sure 1800p on the pro vs 4K on the X wouldn't work either. Whatever the game engine is doing requires a lot of resources per pixel. But true, you are right, it's a much bigger difference between pro and X. The likely reason ps4 pro can't handle 1800p applies to the base xbox as well when it comes to not being able to handle 900p. However choosing 1920x2160? It does seem to leave some GPU resources on the table. CPU limited I guess.



Chazore said:
Kerotan said:

Very smart business. It's the ultimate money making strategy. 

And sadly anti consumer.

As a gaming consumer i don't find Sony anti consumer at all. In fact they are the greatest thing since sliced pan imo. The amount of epic games on the platform this gen is just something else she so many more on the horizon (excuse the pun). 



xbox box x > pro >> ps4 > xbox s

Did we needed 2 hours video telling us we all knew?



 

Kerotan said:
Chazore said:

And sadly anti consumer.

As a gaming consumer i don't find Sony anti consumer at all. In fact they are the greatest thing since sliced pan imo. The amount of epic games on the platform this gen is just something else she so many more on the horizon (excuse the pun). 

Just because you don't see it that way doesn't make them non anti-consumer.

The greatest thing since sliced bread is entirely subjective, but of course you know this.



"Six days have passed, on the seventh, I will render myself to a day of rest and to contemplate...what is to be"